Fare increases - folk don't like them

[Roverman]

The government should look at itself before taxing its citizens.

 

[Greenback]

It's all part of the price of privatisation.

If the public does not want a monopoly nationalised service, and it doesn't, then the public must be willing to dig deep into its pockets to pay for competitive industry. Nothing is free. Competition costs more than monopoly. Private enterprise costs more than public service.

If there is any change back at all then a little just might follow Scots independence.

You are correct. However I remember the architects of privatisation declaring, as each part of BR was hived off, how it was all 'a good deal for the passenger and a good deal for the taxpayer'.

Hmm.

Nobody took the opportunity to explore the possibility that the above inflation fare increases are, at least in part, due to the way in which our rail network has been privatised.

This would be too ambitious for the BBC. It has dumbed down so that they only cover the most straightforward issues in a superficial manner.

This would have been an excellent opportunity for PF to highlight the structural inefficiency built into the UK rail industry privatisation model, and highlight issues such as paying rolling stock leasing costs to banks, particularly on assets which would have been paid off decades ago.

Agreed, but I wouldn't expect PF to be as switched on as all that. They are pretty ineffective on anything that involves strategy, policy or the state of the industry.

2 years Ago I simply couldn't afford to travel by train to work anymore. I bought a cheap little car and now save myself at least 500 pounds a year, now this might not be possible if you live and work in london, but motoring costs have come down dramatically over the past few years, so maybe instead of moaning people just need to use a diffrent form of transport.

It would cost me more to park at my workplace than the daily cost of my season, but it could work for quite a lot of people I suppose.

I agree that it is better to do something than just to moan!

Seriously?

There is as much vocal complaining over fuel duty as there is about rail fares. The two link quite nicely given the idea of high duty is to discourage car use ans encourage public transport use...

The two go hand in hand as, in the absence of any policy to encourage public transport use in any practical way, the government knows that people are trapped by any rising costs of car travel and rail travel.

Perhaps the answer is that people should just travel less? Which is ironic given that the move towards out of town shopping etc merely encourages people to use their cars and stop shopping locally.

Equally, housing costs in big cities have helped encouraged people to live further and further away from their place of work, while local jobs have become more difficult to find for people in places such as where I live.

I believe that increased costs are all part of the price we have to pay for the modern way we like to live. It is, ultimately, unsustainable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps we could stop charging people 40p for 900 mile journeys booked 6 years in advance funded by people paying 158 quid to do a return trip to somewhere 100 miles down the road who are not lucky enough to have advance fares available. That sounds like a nice start.

I think the structure of the industry, and the yied management techniques used to try and maximise revenue need looking at, and that they contribute to the problem of higher walk up fares.

 

[exile]

Many jobs can be done quite effectively from home given the appropriate technology. Mine could, certainly - but it would require a culture change amongst employers and workers - basically bosses would have to trust people to work without direct supervision - and workers would have to demonstrate they can do so.

We've now got used to commuting long distances but it's a recent phenomenon - a couple of generations ago most people lived within walking distance or a short bus or tram ride from their place of work. One of the odd results of this is that we now get a couple of hours less sleep a night than our grandparents did.

 

[EM2]

If the public does not want a monopoly nationalised service, and it doesn't...

Doesn't it? Then why is there a growing demand for re-nationalisation?

 

[Greenback]

Many jobs can be done quite effectively from home given the appropriate technology. Mine could, certainly - but it would require a culture change amongst employers and workers - basically bosses would have to trust people to work without direct supervision - and workers would have to demonstrate they can do so.

We've now got used to commuting long distances but it's a recent phenomenon - a couple of generations ago most people lived within walking distance or a short bus or tram ride from their place of work. One of the odd results of this is that we now get a couple of hours less sleep a night than our grandparents did.

Indeed. The idea that people would commute for over an hour would have seemed ridiculous to the vast majority of people in my grandparents time. Most people would have considered a half hour bus journey to be the maximum comfortable commute where my grandfather lived. Most of the members of the local community worked within walking or cycling distance.

I would quite happily work from home, but since my current employer will not even consider flexible working, I feel there is little hope of anything happening soon! It requires far too much effort, not to mention thinking, for some employers!

 

[dstrat]

Doesn't it? Then why is there a growing demand for re-nationalisation?

Yeah I'd agree. We've had over 30 years of the free market experiment and we know that the big players in the free market - and the government that allows it to happen - will always seek to dominate and manipulate the market place so that it doesn't reflect anything like a free market.

I don't think free markets work, the incentive of competition does not work strongly enough when firms get big enough; they simply do not compete in the manner that the free market spiel said. Neither is there the incentive politicians to intervene and regulate and control markets to perhaps ironically make them free, as shown by the complete lack of backbone when it comes to HMRC and widespread tax evasion by the big firms. Because obviously they would all up sticks and leave the opportunity of one of the wealthiest nations on earth :roll:

 

[andykn]

Lets turn this on its head. Why are people who work expected to cope with wage increases below the cost of living or no increase at all. Bear in mind many people on benefits get other things 'thrown in' such as their rent or Council Tax. Working people have to pay for those too. Why should I have less disposable income or even go into an overdraft just to survive yet those on benefits have the increases more or less covered.

Theres no slur there on the claimant. The problem is with the way the system is structured.

Whilst your point about benefits rising in line with inflation is valid, those on out of work benefits, in theory, have no disposable income at all, the benefits are set at a minimum level to survive. In work benefits are designed so those in work will always be better off than if they were not in work, so if you think you are in that situation you should see what you can claim.

 

[dstrat]

Agreed. Expecting that a man can live the life of riley on £71 a week is a complete joke. And housing benefit is hardly a joyous payment either, considering it goes to your landlord. Granted, when people start shacking up and having kids on the social, it becomes a more rosier affair and I do believe that something needs to be done to discourage this. But outside this, your life is a meagre existence as far as what you can do with your money is concerned.

Without these payments, destitution is the answer, and practically is if you are on JSA. I think a lot of people are not worldly aware and are completely oblivious to the squalor and poverty in the world that is a result of a lack of welfare system. Social disorder and shacks blighting your green fields would be the result without the welfare system.

 

[tbtc]

Especially when there's fewer carriages, more delays, increased cancellation, no investment, out dated infrastructure and all the rest of it.

People aren't just complaining because of the expense. They're complaining because the service is going backwards despite the increases.

How many lines have seen a reduction in the length of trains used in recent years? (with the exception of areas that have seen an increased frequency at the time of shorter trains - e.g. XC/ TPE where the frequency increase mitigated the shorter train lengths)

Presumably a lot, as you've brought it up, but I'm struggling to think of examples - maybe you can help me out?

Why should I pay extra for train services into Lincolnshire when the services are as shocking as ever and the rolling stock should be in a museum

Or maybe "why should people on busy lines elsewhere pay extra to subsidise fairly empty trains in rural areas like Lincolnshire"?

Perhaps we could stop charging people 40p for 900 mile journeys booked 6 years in advance funded by people paying 158 quid to do a return trip to somewhere 100 miles down the road who are not lucky enough to have advance fares available. That sounds like a nice start

Perhaps you could stop coming up with exagerated examples in an attempt to make your point? It would look less desperate.

Yield management suggests that the person paying "40p" for the advanced fare wouldn't pay for a full price ticket (the seat would have been empty otherwise), so nobody is subsidising them - the £40p" ticket can be sold without impacting on the "£158" ticket.

Putting the "40p" ticket up to £40 may price it out of the cheapskate's budget and see the railway lose 40p rather than gaining £39.40.

Agreed. Expecting that a man can live the life of riley on £71 a week is a complete joke. And housing benefit is hardly a joyous payment either, considering it goes to your landlord. Granted, when people start shacking up and having kids on the social, it becomes a more rosier affair and I do believe that something needs to be done to discourage this. But outside this, your life is a meagre existence as far as what you can do with your money is concerned.

Without these payments, destitution is the answer, and practically is if you are on JSA. I think a lot of people are not worldly aware and are completely oblivious to the squalor and poverty in the world that is a result of a lack of welfare system. Social disorder and shacks blighting your green fields would be the result without the welfare system.

I take your point, but it annoys me when people online don't appreciate the middle ground between "if you are unemployed you only get £71 a week - try living on that" and "if you are unemployed you get £26,000 a year, the papers told me so".

Whilst £71 isn't a lot of money, it's all of the other benefits that add up to make it more comfortable (having your rent paid for you, not paying council tax etc), though in 99% of cases that's not to anywhere near the £26,000 figure so beloved of our coalition government.

(not intended as a criticism of dstrat - just a general point before we get into a "black/ white" debate about benefits)

 

[GodAtum]

Unfortunately I know a student who goes to school on the train and can now not afford to travel there

 

[Roverman]

Whilst your point about benefits rising in line with inflation is valid, those on out of work benefits, in theory, have no disposable income at all, the benefits are set at a minimum level to survive. In work benefits are designed so those in work will always be better off than if they were not in work, so if you think you are in that situation you should see what you can claim.

I have, and am entitled to nowt working full time. However if I cut my hours to say 35 instead of 45 I'd qualify for Working Tax Credit. I'd be better off as I'd spend less money on fuel driving to/from work. I'd also have a better quality of life as I'd spend more time enjoying life with my family and friends.

However in the long run this would mean the Government would get less income tax and NI from me but have to spend more money looking after me.

I therefore can't see how this demonstrates how those in work are better off staying in work.

No doubt I will be called a 'bigot' for daring to have these thoughts....

 

[tbtc]

I have, and am entitled to nowt working full time. However if I cut my hours to say 35 instead of 45 I'd qualify for Working Tax Credit. I'd be better off as I'd spend less money on fuel driving to/from work. I'd also have a better quality of life as I'd spend more time enjoying life with my family and friends.

However in the long run this would mean the Government would get less income tax and NI from me but have to spend more money looking after me.

I therefore can't see how this demonstrates how those in work are better off staying in work.

No doubt I will be called a 'bigot' for daring to have these thoughts....

This is a fair point - whilst the headline rate of JSA looks fairly low ("try living on just £71 a week" etc), all of the other benefits/ credits do add up - which also causes confusion about the whole system.

I'm not a big fan of the coalition, but I can see why they are wanting to introduce a single "universal" benefit - at the moment there are lots of "little" benefits so you end up with unintended consequences.

 

[Haydn1971]

People aren't just complaining because of the expense. They're complaining because the service is going backwards despite the increases.

That's exactly my thoughts, I feel my service (Northern) offers good value, but would be prepared to pay up to twice what I pay now for decent comfortable and spacious seats (I'm 6ft 4 and large build), nice environment (lights are too bright first thing, heater on full or off, dirty seats, litter), faster service (Hallam Line), warm platform waiting areas (Meadowhall 3&4, Leeds 13&17) etc etc etc...

 

[Dave1987]

Every year this argument comes up about rail fares. About how the rail companies are fleecing passengers and there are never any improvements! You all want shiny new trains that cost millions per carriage. You all want free wifi at every station and on trains. You want faster journey times etc etc the list goes on and on...

How are all these luxuries supposed to be funded? Upgrading lines for faster running costs huge amounts due to the safety considerations.

Again you all want all the extra luxuries for no extra money...something for nothing culture!!!

 

[PR1Berske]

Every year this argument comes up about rail fares. About how the rail companies are fleecing passengers and there are never any improvements! You all want shiny new trains that cost millions per carriage. You all want free wifi at every station and on trains. You want faster journey times etc etc the list goes on and on...

How are all these luxuries supposed to be funded? Upgrading lines for faster running costs huge amounts due to the safety considerations.

Again you all want all the extra luxuries for no extra money...something for nothing culture!!!

Private train companies make massive profits. That's how they should be funded

Why should passengers fund improvements to a private companies service?

 

[andykn]

I have, and am entitled to nowt working full time. However if I cut my hours to say 35 instead of 45 I'd qualify for Working Tax Credit. I'd be better off as I'd spend less money on fuel driving to/from work. I'd also have a better quality of life as I'd spend more time enjoying life with my family and friends.

However in the long run this would mean the Government would get less income tax and NI from me but have to spend more money looking after me.

I therefore can't see how this demonstrates how those in work are better off staying in work.

No doubt I will be called a 'bigot' for daring to have these thoughts....

I'd be very surprised if your sums add up, 10 hours a week extra should be at least 60 odd quid a week. That's a lot of petrol and benefits.

But if you and 3 colleagues all gave up 10 hours a week, then you employer could hire another employee - think how much benefits that would save us all.

 

[tbtc]

Private train companies make massive profits. That's how they should be funded

Why should passengers fund improvements to a private companies service?

Really?

Some make around 3% (some appear to be currently losing money though).

Is 3% "massive"?

 

[Dave1987]

Private train companies make massive profits. That's how they should be funded

Why should passengers fund improvements to a private companies service?

Can you provide me with a link that proves your claim that they are making massive profits or have you just been caught up in left wing PR spin?

 

[455driver]

Unfortunately I know a student who goes to school on the train and can now not afford to travel there

Are you saying that the student was forced to accept a school place a train ride away because there was no school nearer?
Or did they choose a school a train ride away and are now complaining about the costs of transport?

I know of one girl who commutes from Waterloo to Portsmouth every day for school!hock:

As with all these articles they are very selective on what figures they use so they can whip the audience (who dont seem able to do any research themselves) up into a frenzy, works as well!

 

[Oliver]

Private train companies make massive profits. That's how they should be funded
Why should passengers fund improvements to a private companies service?

As another poster pointed out, TOC's make at best about 3% profit on the tickets they sell. In contrast, large supermarkets make 8 - 10% margin. The black hole in the rail industry is Network Rail, which is effectively a nationalised monopoly answerable to pretty much no-one.

 

[DarloRich]

Transport minister Norman Baker has admitted the current rail fare structure is "not ideal" and said the government wants to end above-inflation rises as soon as possible

Well here is an idea - SORT IT OUT NOW YOU BUNCH OF HYPOCRITS

What he means is that the government wants to be seen to doing something and being on the side of "hard pressed families" while actually doing less than sod all. Why? Because they don’t have to pay for train fares, aren’t short of cash and they their fat cat chums in the city and in business don’t care about us or really have a clue what it cost sus to travel on a daily basis.

The double standards make my p*ss boil. As the saying goes "sh*t or get off the pot"

(cf utility/fuel prices)

 

[island]

Why should passengers fund improvements to a private companies service?

Because they're the ones using the service?

 

[Roverman]

I'd be very surprised if your sums add up, 10 hours a week extra should be at least 60 odd quid a week. That's a lot of petrol and benefits.

But if you and 3 colleagues all gave up 10 hours a week, then you employer could hire another employee - think how much benefits that would save us all.

I'm not sure they would hire another person unless we dropped below the minimum staffing levels set by the computer but I take your point on board.

Remember the £60 is gross so its really more like £45 once Tax and NI has been paid whereas the WTC is paid free of tax.

STOP PRESS-I've just remembered that the Personal Allowance is going up to around £9500 in April, I could therefore drop to around 30 hours a week and pay no tax at all-BRILLIANT

 

[GodAtum]

Are you saying that the student was forced to accept a school place a train ride away because there was no school nearer?
Or did they choose a school a train ride away and are now complaining about the costs of transport?

It's a specialist arts college so there is nothing nearer.

 

[jb]

Doesn't it? Then why is there a growing demand for re-nationalisation?

There isn't, not really. The growing demand is simply for "not this" (where "this" is increasing fares). Renationalisation is simply one codeword for that. I'd bet that many who utter it haven't the faintest idea what it means, and very few who utter it will have thought through all the implications.

It's a bit like when you interview people who are delayed (rail is good but air even better for this) and they say something along the lines of: "all we want is more information". That is complete cobblers - what they want (and all they want) is for their train / plane / whatever to actually go. More information (about the fact that they aren't actually departing) is almost no comfort at all, yet they invariably trot out the meme that this is what they want.

Unfortunately I know a student who goes to school on the train and can now not afford to travel there

Things like this are quite simply never true, at least not at face value. Of course they can still "afford" to travel there, it's just that they (their parents?) might now be unwilling to make the necessary cuts to lifestyle elsewhere. I'm not saying anything about the rights and wrongs of this, just pointing out the inevitable falsity of the anecdote.

 

[Goatboy]

How many lines have seen a reduction in the length of trains used in recent years? (with the exception of areas that have seen an increased frequency at the time of shorter trains - e.g. XC/ TPE where the frequency increase mitigated the shorter train lengths)

It is debatable whether frequency increase mitigates shorter train lengths for everyone. Lots of journeys people make are done at a certain time - especially long distance ones. It doesnt matter if there was 1 train an hour or 1 train every 3 hours provided it goes at the time they travel, especially on journeys of a sufficient length that they are planned in advance.

For these people the removal of a 6 coach train every 2 hours and replacement with a 2.5 coach train (there is about 2.5 coaches of actual seating on a Voyager) every 1 hour is a service reduction. Plus then you get the increased number of people making shorter hops due to the better frequency, all jostling for the same limited space.

Perhaps you could stop coming up with exagerated examples in an attempt to make your point? It would look less desperate.

'Desperate'? Oh please, it's a discussion on an internet forum about railways. I don't tihnk anyone is getting 'desperate'.

Yield management suggests that the person paying "40p" for the advanced fare wouldn't pay for a full price ticket (the seat would have been empty otherwise), so nobody is subsidising them - the £40p" ticket can be sold without impacting on the "£158" ticket.

Putting the "40p" ticket up to £40 may price it out of the cheapskate's budget and see the railway lose 40p rather than gaining £39.40.

If the 40p ticket was 60p it would probably still be purchased. I've mentioned it before but as delighted as I am with the £7.50 Advance Single I have from Birmingham to Euston, it is bonkers cheap. I'd still have bought it at twice the price. As would almost everyone. I bet there is nobody who would consider £15 one way to London too expensive. So remove the comedy-cheap fares and put the extra revenue generated into reducing the higher fares.

Yield management is not an exact science and its not always right - its impossible for it to always be right. Otherwise you'd never find anyone on a wedged Voyager with a cheap Advance. Which you do - frequently (Provided they are lucky enough to travel between two stations XC actually offer Advance Fares from which don't cost almost as much as a walkon single, obviously).

 

[Dave1987]

Transport minister Norman Baker has admitted the current rail fare structure is "not ideal" and said the government wants to end above-inflation rises as soon as possible

Well here is an idea - SORT IT OUT NOW YOU BUNCH OF HYPOCRITS

What he means is that the government wants to be seen to doing something and being on the side of "hard pressed families" while actually doing less than sod all. Why? Because they don’t have to pay for train fares, aren’t short of cash and they their fat cat chums in the city and in business don’t care about us or really have a clue what it cost sus to travel on a daily basis.

The double standards make my p*ss boil. As the saying goes "sh*t or get off the pot"

(cf utility/fuel prices)

Do you read the daily fail i mean mail by any chance? You really are ill informed aren't you! Go and live in a communist country where the wealth is "shared". You will always have well off people and poorer people. I will not criticise someone who works a 60 hour week running their own business and gets a decent amount of money for it. Especially when a certain party thinks it ok to hand out money to people who cant be bothered to work or turn up at work on time. Anyway enough of politics on a railway forum.

 

[DarloRich]

Erm I thought Fares went up by average 4% and wages just didn't. Unless you were an MP or on benefits of course.

They increased by far more than most peoples wages. Is that right?

It has been limited to a maximum 1% increase this year as set out in the pre budget report. But anyone on benefits must be earning 50k a year eh! Don’t believe everything the Daily Mail tells you. :roll:

BTW - have you experience of claiming benefits? I have.

I don’t have a problem with the rise in fares if it communicated to people clearly. Coupled with this there has to be clearly visible outputs and improvements from the investment.

The real issue is that people don’t understand how the railway works, and why should they if we don’t or can’t explain it in a simple manner. However it also it has to be acknowledged that there has been a shortage of investment in the physical railway infrastructure that we are just starting to address.

I would like to see the train companies be forced to reinvest more of their money into the railway network, facilities and rolling stock rather than paying shareholder dividends

 

[Greenback]

The thing about Advance tickets is that it isn't necessarily true that those who purchase the cheapest tickets will not be willing to pay more. In many cases, and I class myself as guilty in this respect, then people will simply look for the cheapest ticket they can get which fits their needs.

For instance, if I know I am going to go to Reading in three months, then I might get a ticket for £12.50. However, I would be willing to pay double that, or even more, but I am not going to turn down the cheaper fare!

 

[Starmill]

I think there is an economic explanation as to why people get so angry about these fare rises; there is a difference between a fixed cost and a variable one. The theory normally applies to firms, where variable costs vary directly with output, but fixed costs don't.

Assume output is transport. If you have a car, your fixed costs are large, and in a large proportion of the total costs: buying the car, buying a year's insurance, paying the VED and keeping it maintained when anything goes wrong with it (that last is semi-variable, which means it might go up the more you use it, but there will still be some cost at no output (i.e. servicing)). The only real variable cost is fuel. And people do most certainly complain about that. They can see that the more they drive, the more they use, and as such moan that the rate increases.

The difference with buying a train ticket is, you aren't liable for the fixed costs (the train lease, the track access fees, the staff wages, insurance and other contractors (cleaning, maintenance ect.)) - the TOC is, and they tend to load the majority of their fixed costs onto anytime tickets (and season tickets, to a lesser extent). This means that you don't notice them as fixed costs, because if you refuse to travel, you rightly pay nothing. That is not the case if you own a car but do not use it - you are still paying the fixed costs if you go out to get the train that day.

I hope that makes a little bit more sense... sorry if its a dodgy explanation. Certainly it has been over-simplified. I guess the conclusion is; its better value to get the train if you get rid of your car. The worst thing you can do is run the car and get the train; then you pay two lots of fixed costs. Sadly this is practical reality for most.